Relaxing the Kündigungsschutz laws

Part of the CDU/CSU platform for reform of the Arbeitsmarkt in Germany is aimed at relaxing the Kündigungsschutz (protection from dismissal) laws that full-time (and many part-time) employees throughout Germany enjoy. Studies have proven that many companies are reluctant to hire new employees during economic booms due to the fact that these people are VERY difficult to 'get rid of' when growth slows. Something obviously must be done to create new jobs, but many people are anxious that their jobs will be sacrificed for larger profit margins (take Deutsche Bank, for example). I am interested to know what the members here think about these proposals and if you think your jobs may be in jeopardy if these laws are passed.

Hey no prob if you are a boss but when the shit hits the fan and you are out for no reason then it is bollocks.

Kundingungsschutz is a very civilised part of Gewrmany. As one who has been on the receiving end of zero Kundigungschutz we need all the workers rights we can get.

Dam Skippy

Well I've been made redundant via a company insolvency (notice period: 2 weeks due to still being on Probezeit) and have also had to get out of a long contract quicker using an Aufhebungsvertrag. So have experienced both ends.
But I don't have a family to support.
Of course, I hear it is fabulous to be a Beamte on a lifetime contract apparently...

Disagree. 6 months pay for laying people off is pretty cushy and discourages companies from hiring new people in the good times.

I was hoping someone could tell us just exactly how the Kundigungschutz would be relaxed?

Reform now, although it would turn the Germans upside down and inside out, but they would be able to get a new job faster if they were cut loose.

CDU and CSU want it to apply at for new employees only when the business employs more than 20 people (small family business owners tend to vote Union).
For larger businesses, the protection would only be effective after 2 years in the same company for new employees.

Right now, it's not as if you can't fire someone or lay people off. They do it. Deutsche Bank made record profits and still layed off a whole slew of workers recently.

I was married to one. At 27 Beamtin for life, wages twice the national average even if there is no work for you, full wages no matter how much you fuck up you cannot get sacked, you pay no unemployment,pay no health insurance and get the best treament know to man and its subsidised if you get ill, usually 80-100%. Pension at 55 is usually 75% and at 60 mostly 90-100% and the list goes on and on. What really grips my shit is they are not doing anything for the public they generally (`cept teachers) manage the wages and jobs of the other parasites, shit even my Xwife agreed that they where a bunch of useless bastards.

I think it's good as it makes the job market more flexible.

On the other hand, I suggest we let those bozos put together a government first before we speculate on any new laws.

What it currently means is that according to the Sozialregelung you have to keep the single parents, the older workers, those caring for families and get rid of the younger, less experienced staff first.
Unfortunately those staff are generally the cheapest.
Getting rid of a "seat warmer" is actually quite difficult.
Unless early retirement, part-time working, outsourcing or other methods are used.
Creating a straightforward redundancy is actually pretty complicated.
You have to do it another way (which is why Deutsche Bank reduced the number of employees but with few actual redundancies - they got creative).
Having to pay up to six month's pay to get rid of someone who is constantly late isn't that uncommon.
And fewer teachers in Germany actually work until retirement, they tend to leave at 55 for various reasons.

When Merkel gave a talk here (when was that?) at Hohenzollernplatz she was talking about, for example, making it easier to fire older employees - getting rid of the social aspect - with the arguement that people don't want to hire people they can't fire if need be.
If that's still the case in the CSU/CDU I don't know.

For starters, it looks like the CDU is proposing that small businesses (less than 20 employees) be completely 'befreit' from the Kündigungsschutz (with new hires):

Das Arbeitsrecht soll modernisiert werden, indem die betrieblichen
Bündnisse für Arbeit und beschäftigungssichernde Betriebsvereinbarungen
(gesetzlich) festgelegt werden. Das soll erreicht werden, indem Unter- nehmen mit weniger als 20 Mitarbeitern bei Neueinstellungen vom Kündi- gungsschutz befreit werden.

Also, they have proposed a changed to the present laws that would allow for the protection from dismissal only after 3 years. Quite a long time if you ask me.

Gesetzlicher Kündigungsschutz für neue Mitarbeiter erst nach 3 Jahren

Auf diese Kernpunkte läuft der Reformvorschlag der CDU im Endeffekt hinaus. Die größte Oppositionspartei im Bundestag will vor allem an den Kündigungsschutz. Hier planen die Christdemokraten offenbar wesentliche Einschnitte zum Nachteil der Arbeitnehmer: In den ersten 3 Jahren nach einer Neueinstellungen soll es nach den Plänen der CDU gar keinen Kündigungsschutz mehr geben, berichtet “Die Welt�. Nach der aktuellen Gesetzlage haben neue Mitarbeiter bereits nach Ablauf von 6 Monaten Kündigungsschutz.

I think Germany should adopt a system like the UK. Temp, temp to perm, perm. Each is a trade-off between flexibility and pay. Someone who wants to earn more sacrifices job security and the company pays a premium for the flexibility. Someone whose looking for job security or long-term growth prospects looks for a permanent job which pays slightly less, but has additional security.

Kündigungsschutz is definitely killing the Mittelstand. They account for 60% of the German economy so Deutsche Bank is really irrelevant.

I don't see how treating workers like disposable commodities is good business. All you get is a less experienced, demoralized work-force. There are still ways left to get rid of the useless.

I can give a nod to protecting against capitalist greed, though I am a greedy capitalist myself, but I have to draw the line at protecting lazy asses. Protecting poor quality performers hurts business and other people that could/would take pride in their work.

The costs my firm has incurred for pinkslipping people for *poor performance* reasons frankly could've translated into many other workers on payroll. I'm talking about peeps who go through their probation period and then couldn't give a shit about the quality of their work for whatever reason. It gutted me for example, to see Toytowner x looking for a job that lazy ass y was not even half assedly doing (with good pay and good benefits) in one of our offices.

Thankfully, most of the deadweight is gone but it was damn expensive housecleaning. I understand from talking to other capitalist pigs that this is not an uncommon problem. I personally would've rather seen the money pocketed by someone who earned it.

Actually the current Kündigungscchutz law is one of the reasons I am working here and not in Canada...

At this point they have to "pay me off" to get rid of me (Aufhebungsvertrag).

Which I have been on the receiving end (Aufhebungsvertrag)...so I like this from my perspective, especially since I am the only wage earner in my family.

But in general I agree, that Kündigung rules and MANY other things contribute to the struggling German economy.

More like ridiculous period I call it.

All very well people blabbing on about "flexible"labour markets but when it happens to you it is a different matter.

And outsourcing is a joke. I hacve managed projects with this and they end up more expensive than using Germans. Alsoa joke.

I agree with the lessening of the laws- it keeps people on their toes, and then those that don't do the work are no longer protected and let go! Yeah! Better for the company to have good eager workers than lazy ass people sitting on the Kündigungsschutz!

Lazy-ass and incompetent workers do get fired here. I've seen several booted from my company in the last few years.

It seems to me that all the Kündigungschutz really does is make it too costly for companies to simply slash their workforce regularly in order to temporarily raise profit margins, then quickly go on a new hireing spree after the stocks do well, as is the regular practice in the States.

The Beamter (Civil servant) Kündigungschutz is another matter entirely, is totally wrong, and is not the Kündigungschutz that is being reviewed.

I once did a couple of mercifully short temping jobs at Lambeth Council, they are the fucking worst you have ever seen. I actually left both places cos it drove me nuts having to work with people like that

How about for example an exhausted and stressed parent who sometimes cannot perform at work that day?

How about employees who are doing exactly the same job then one finds out the other is paid way more and is even in a higher position?

We cannot all be highly productive highly motivated employees, especially when we think our boss might fire us any minute.

Keeping one on their toes means making them worried every day that they can get fired. All very well if you are a boss but not ifyou are in a humble job.

Kat, I have been through it was well at my previous employer. It is a tedious and costly (more in terms of time, money and nerves) process. Unless you want a lawsuit for wrongfull dismissal, you normally end up having to offer an "Auflösungsvertrag". It is very hard to prove on of the main reasons for an "ordentliche Kündigung". In this case it would be "personenbedingt". It really is hard to prove lazyness and incompetence to a satisfactory degree without risking a lawsuit. So the employee gets offered the "Auflösungsvertrag". You buy off the employee youwant to get rid of. Like i said, costly.

All I know is that the regulations on when an employee suddenly has "tenure" is arbitrarily set and does affect hiring descisions a bit too much. When things are up, more work is placed on the existing employees because it is too difficult to hire extra employees for an indeterminate amount of time. In official jobs, this is even worse and we are having a problem with that now. I am also under this crap as for me to continue where I am, I would have to become "permanent" when I don't want that. We have interviewed numerous people for an open permanent position, but they are so afraid of hiring the wrong person. This is a big problem. It is understandable that people may move to get a new job and or give up a position to take on another position, but this should be negotiated and not regulated.
On the lower level jobs, their should still remain some protection of workers rights, but stimulating the economy will only increase the amount and flexibility of those jobs.

Even in countries where rules on firing are slacker, bosses normally have an understanding for fact that EVERYONE has a personal life. You just need to talk to hem usuually, they are fine. in my personal experience anyway. I had some personal shit impacting on my work performance. I talked it through, bosses were ok and understood. It was/is a temporary situation which has an end. However if your family life is permanently impacting on your ability to perform, then you are in the wrong job.


life a bitch innit? suck it up and accept it. people here in my office do the same job as each other. none is paid the same or necessarily on the same tarif level. Some people are being developed/groomed for higher/better things, others have reached their level.


The ability to sack someone is not the be-all-and-end-all. It is the stick that is necessary to make the carrots juicier. A good employer will motivate through employee development and pay increases for good performannces as well as use the stick of sacking for non-performance. It is also de-motivating for good employees to see someone sat on their arse and still get pay and no risk of being fired.

you just proved you have no idea OG. family will always impact on your "performance" as the responsibilities of a family sometimes clash with the "i need this tommorrow morning for when i get in at 10" mentality of alot of delegation-just-in-time-managers (read people who cant do it themselves)

I think OG's use of the word 'permanently' makes his arguement an acceptable one. Of course, most employers overlook the occasional day off due to sickness of a child or lack of productivity due to lack of sleep. But if it is a constant thing, then I agree with OG (and I am a working mother), you do have to consider the position of the employer.

maybe i just work with shit managers but my commitment has been constantly questioned because i spend time with my family, ie went home regularly at 6 even though i was in the office at 8 in the morning. (although saying that im in the office now, have already worked 40+ hours since sunday, and did 90 hours last week. if anybody understands rendering they'll know what i'm doing) i guess its all aquestion of being able to discern between commitment/productivity/time/life managment, which is where alot of managers fail badly.

Maybe OG is right. Maybe you are in the wrong job Gideon. I don't mean in the sense you need to be doing more, but in the sense you should have a more understanding team/boss around you, especially if the work is being done.

our office did some layoffs this spring... and due to some 'laws' we had to let go a few of the best people, because some of the others were single moms (2 live with the fathers of their kids, I consider that legally married! the other is a widow with a child still in university, funny, all three are continually sick!) , although they all worked at the office less time the other 6, they keep their jobs, and the old married women (20 years with the company) lost their jobs! And those older married women were the better and more loyal employees. I am really not a brute, but in Canada- the newest get laid off first, it protects the older employees from layoffs to cut salaries. Now that is not the same if the person gets fired.

I am all for people getting fired if they mess up, or don't pull their weight. I have worked in enough offices here, to see people in a secure postition, not doing their job, and still sitting there earning a salary. Here is just seems to be so hard to prove, and you need so many 'pink' slips on record before you can fire someone. And if you don't the pay off is so costly (as OG said), most companies don't do it. A lessen of the laws in my opinion will make the worker more responsible for their job and the quality that goes with it.

Guess it boils down to what kind of employee you are!

eh? when?

where are these good employers?

Me and my lab!

I worked for SBC (#2 phone provider in the US) before moving here, and this company is known for having a super strict attendance policy- but I think the order in which they did lay-offs was really fair. First they had to offer early retirement, then they would offer "buyouts" (a friend of mine took it and walked away with about 30k), only after that would they declare depts to be "surplus". (and it went by seniority-newer employees were surplused first) If you were surplused (and you would know this at least 6 months in advance) you had priority over other employees with regards to intra-company transfers. I think you still got priority for a period of time even after you were laid off..

My personal opinion is that the laws are extremely socialist to the point of ridiculousness. However, if you think relaxing protection laws will actually create more work then you have your head in the clouds. Relaxing these laws only make the workforce more flexible for employers.

- When times are good they are not going to say lets hire more workers they are going to load up existing employees. Only when they achieve a capacity constraint will they hire anyone and they will only be for the temporary demand.

- When the workload is lean they will reduce the existing core workforce in order that costs don’t exceed income.

Thus they are always maximizing the profits for the company. Very few extra jobs are created.

The big handbreak on German job growth is simply the cost of the worker and this won’t go away as long as you can do it in the east or in Asia at 1/10th of the cost. There are very few things made / done in Germany that can’t be done somewhere else for a lot cheaper.

The other point I’d like to make is with regard to some of the responses above. A lot seem to be of the mindset,- “this is how it is in my circumstance “ and thus the model is good for everyone.

Right now you could be a single white male in his early 30s with no family commitments who offers the employer the flexibility to come in on Saturdays etc. In 5 years things may have changed and some of that early flexibility “credit� may need to be cashed in for some “family flexi time�.

What goes around comes around.

I wonder how many of those that don't want the system to change are abusing the system or are worried that their work productivity sucks?

As I employ people and make descisions about who stays and who goes, I keep the best and if they have a problem, we work around it. It is better to have a good employee with the occasional "need", than to have someone that shows up everyday and does nothing worthy. If someone has to come in every weekend to do their work, then they are bad employees or have way to much for one person. A good employee is a happy employee and spending every weekend in the office does not lead to happiness. However, a good employee will have no problem coming in on the occassional weekend when there is an unexpected heavy workload.

The productivity is all about man-hours.

And let us not forget that CSU/CDU want to also do away with the tax benefits for
shift workers.. I know there are many of us in this position and I know I'd loose
out on about 300-400 EUR per month and another 1200 or so on the yearly tax
return... Not to mention My normal work week is already over the std. 35-40hrs...

So in my opinion CSU/CDU can go to hell... Just like everything else in this country seems to be heading

No they bloody don't. If youthink a boss actualkly cares about his employees as people. then you have lived in cotton wool jobs for years.

Mr Bucket the 6th has maybe made the best and most sensible posting of the day. Well done that man!

And Mr Knight...you have actually said something I agree with. You may be not the person I took you for...

Relaxing the firing laws will do nothing for the job market except add new laid-off workers to the unemployment payroll and give the corporates a new way to screw the workers.
F*ck that. I don't want to hear any whinging from Mr. Thievery Corporation about how it soooo sucks to have to have a good REASON to fire employees. Tough.
As it is, I know my employer can and will fire me if I don't perform up to spec. I don't need it cushy, it just needs to stay legislated to keep it fair.

I have lived under the system of laying people off seemingly at will (in the US.) For example, I worked for a subsidiary of Corning. The managers called for an all-staff meeting one Friday morning. When the meeting began, they closed the doors and said, "If you're here at this meeting, you still have a job. Anyone who is not here now has been laid off, unless they are out sick or on vacation."

The company had planted managers in the hallways leading to the meeting room to pull people aside who had been chosen for the lay-off. These people were escorted to their desks, told to clear out all their personal belongings, taken to the front doors, and relieved of their security badges.

This was pretty traumatic for all of us, to say the least. Everyone was scrambling to phone up the people who had been laid off, to meet for drinks later or something, since nobody got a chance to say goodbye. Office morale was extremely low for a few months after that, to say the least.

That said, the people who got laid off were the most deserving to get the axe. The company didn't have to fuss about "Sozialrecht." They didn't have to pay off people who didn't deserve to keep their jobs in the first place. I've seen people here who have been made redundant, sued the company, and won the right to keep their jobs because they had families or whatever! Who wants to go back to work in a company that obviously doesn't want you? Besides that, the company still had to get rid of someone, so they gave the talented single guy at the next desk the heave-ho.

There must be a middle way.

Exactly cinzia, but what is the middle way? I doubt Germany will go to the extreme, so they actually might come up with that middle way. Something has to be done and we will see what they come up with.
Remember, the way it is now, you can't just quite to take a new job, you have to give notice and hope the new job will wait for you. The middle ground could work in favor of both employer and employee.

Exactly, eurovol. As an example of the middle way, surely the mindset that everyone must give/be given so MUCH notice when terminating a job or being terminated could change. That, along with the notion that a company should have to give 6 months' severance pay for laying someone off. (It's off topic, but I also hate the standard 3 months' notice I have to give when terminating ANY contract, like my mobile phone, membership in clubs, etc. Why do they need that much time??)

Another example of a middle way to ease the problem of burdensome employment for companies would be to stop saving jobs for 3 years for women who have a baby. One year, maybe. Three years is ridiculous. It puts the company in a tough spot, and makes it harder for them to justify hiring young women who might get pregnant. Therefore, young women have a harder time getting hired, whether they intend to procreate or not, and whether or not they would stay out of the workplace for three years if they did. Obviously, having such a law doesn't seem to be improving the birth rate.

I think it would be a good thing for Germany if the job market were a little more fluid. Not as fluid as in the US, but the Germans seem to be a bit too obsessive/defensive about job "security." Too much of it is not good for business, and in the end, it's not good for the workers, either.

Okay if I were a boss worried about worker productivity I would cut off the Toytown domain of all expats.


No it bloody isn't. When you settle into a family situation you need every bit of social help you can get that the taxes pay for.

if you look at the flip side though jeremy, it means that companies are less inclined to employ women between 20 and 35, which can't be a good situation ?